Valid Names Results

Pinnaspis theae (Maskell, 1891) (Diaspididae: Pinnaspis)

Nomenclatural History

Chionaspis theae Maskell 1891a: 60. Type data: INDIA: Assam on Thea sp.. Syntypes, female, Type depository: Auckland: New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research, New Zealand; Washington: United States National Entomological Collection, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, District of Columbia, USA; accepted valid name Illustr.
Aspidiotus theae (Maskell, 1891); Cotes 1893: 25. change of combination
Chionaspis aspidistrae theae Maskell, 1891; Maskell 1897: 306. change in status (level)
Hemichionaspis theae (Maskell, 1891); Cooley 1899: 51. change of combination
Chionaspis separata Green 1900c: 5-6. Type data: INDIA: West Bengal, Darjeeling, on Thea sp.. Syntypes, female, Type depository: London: The Natural History Museum, England, UK; junior synonym (discovered by FerrisRa1947, 29, 42). Illustr.
Hemichionaspis separata (Green, 1900); MacGillivray 1921: 340. change of combination
Pinnaspis theae (Maskell, 1891); Takahashi 1929: 74. change of combination
Pinnaspis separata (Green, 1900); Ramachandran & Ramakrishna Ayyar 1934: 8. change of combination
Trichomytilus theae (Maskell, 1891); Lindinger 1934: 64. change of combination
Pinaspis theae; Lindinger 1958: 371. misspelling of genus name
Pinnaspis theae (Maskell, 1891); Borchsenius 1966: 115. revived combination (previously published)

Common Names

Ecological Associates

Hosts:

Families: 6 | Genera: 6

Asparagaceae

Cordyline | Balach1957c
Cordyline fruticosa | Balach1959a | (= Cordyline terminalis)

Lythraceae

Punica | Borchs1966
Punica granatum | BalikaKoPr2011

Pentaphylacaceae

Eurya japonica | Green1937

Rubiaceae

Psychotria | Cooley1899

Symplocaceae

Symplocos lucida | FerrisRa1947 | (= Symplocos theifolia)

Theaceae

Camellia | Maskel1891a | (= Thea)
Camellia japonica | Takaha1929 Tao1999 | (= Thea japonica)
Camellia sinensis | Takaha1929 Tao1999

Foes:

Families: 1 | Genera: 1

Aphelinidae

Aphytis theae | Cooley1899 | (= Aphelinus theae)

Geographic Distribution

Countries: 9

China

Anhui (=Anhwei) | Tao1999
Fujian (=Fukien) | Tang1986
Guangdong (=Kwangtung) | Tao1999
Guangxi (=Kwangsi) | Tang1986
Guizhou (=Kweichow) | Hua2000
Hainan | Tao1999
Hubei (=Hupei) | Tao1999
Hunan | Tao1999
Jiangsu (=Kiangsu) | Tao1999
Sichuan (=Szechwan) | Tao1999
Yunnan | Tang1986
Zhejiang (=Chekiang) | Tao1999

Colombia | Balach1959a Mosque1976

Guadeloupe | Balach1957c

India | Fernal1903b

Assam | Maskel1891a
West Bengal | Ali1969a Green1900c

Japan | Clause1931

Martinique | Balach1957c

Singapore | JansenAl2023

Sri Lanka | Cooley1899 DEDAC1923

Taiwan | Takaha1929

Keys

DaoBeWa2023: pp.1024, 1027-1028 ( Adult (F) ) [Diaspididae on citrus in Indochina and southern China.]
Chen1983: pp.18 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]
Chou1982: pp.92 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to Chinese species of Pinnaspis]
FerrisRa1947: pp.43 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to species of Pinnaspis]
MacGil1921: pp.340 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to species of Hemichionaspis] Key as: Hemichionaspis separata
MacGil1921: pp.342 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to species of Hemichionaspis]
Cocker1902b: pp.82 ( ) [Key to species of Hemichionaspis] Key as: Hemichionaspis theae
Cooley1899: pp.45 ( Adult (F) ) [Key to species of Hemichionaspis] Key as: Hemichionaspis theae
Green1899a: pp.107 ( ) [Synopsis of Chionaspis species] Key as: Chionaspis theae

Remarks

Systematics: Because Chionaspis theae Maskell 1891a (=Pinnaspis theae) was considered synonymous with Chionaspis prunicola theae Maskell 1896b (=Pseudaulacaspis prunicola theae according to Borchsenius (1966), citations of either name could be incorrect and refer to the other species.
Structure: Female scale normally brown, but at times white. Adult female with median pygidial lobes very small, at times shorter than the 2nd lobes, slightly separated, their outer margins variously notched; basal sclerosis small, but distinct. 2nd lobes unusually strongly developed, the mesal lobe expanding toward the apex and apically somewhat hatchet-shaped, the outer lobule but slightly smaller, apically rounded. 3rd lobe also well developed (Ferris & Rao, 1947).
Biology: Male scales tend to arrange themselves in great number on host leaves, close together and all pointing in the same direction (Ferris & Rao, 1937).
Economic Importance: Miller & Davidson (1990) list this insect as a pest.
General Remarks: Detailed description and illustration by Ferris & Rao (1947).

Illustrations

Citations

Ali1969a: distribution, host, taxonomy, 66
Balach1957c: distribution, host, 202
Balach1959a: distribution, host, taxonomy, 363
BalikaKoPr2011: distribution, host, 579
Borchs1966: catalog, distribution, host, taxonomy, 115
Chen1983: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 26-27, 116
Chou1982: description, distribution, host, taxonomy, 92, 94-95
Chou1986: illustration, 498
Clause1931: distribution, host, 77
Cocker1894r: distribution, host, 620
Cocker1899a: taxonomy, 398
Cooley1899: biological control, description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 45, 47, 51-52
Cotes1893: chemical control, distribution, host, 25
DEDAC1923: distribution, host, 15
DanzigPe1998: catalog, distribution, host, taxonomy, 336
DaoBeWa2023: key, 1029
Das1976: distribution, host, 13
DasGa1961: distribution, host, 253
DeitzTo1980: distribution, taxonomy, 43
DooleySm2013: catalog, 12
Fernal1903b: distribution, host, taxonomy, 241
FerrisRa1947: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 29, 41-42, 43
Fletch1914: distribution, host, 520
Fletch1917a: distribution, host, 22
Green1899a: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 107, 113-114
Green1900c: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 5-6, 12
Green1922: taxonomy, 460
Green1937: catalog, distribution, host, taxonomy, 321
HuHeWa1992: distribution, illustration, 200
Hua2000: distribution, host, 158
JansenAl2023: dispersal, host, 27
KakotiDeRo2022: distribution, host, list, 9
KondoWa2022a: distribution, host, list, 19
Koning1908: distribution, taxonomy, 5
KozarWa1985: catalog, distribution, 86
Lindin1932f: taxonomy, 204
Lindin1934: taxonomy, 64
Lindin1935: taxonomy, 143
Lindin1958: taxonomy, 371
MacGil1921: distribution, host, taxonomy, 340, 342
Maskel1891a: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 60
Maskel1892: description, distribution, host, taxonomy, 14-15
Maskel1897: taxonomy, 306
Meurge2011: distribution, 81
MillerDa1990: economic importance, taxonomy, 304
Mosque1976: distribution, host, 95
Murale1983: economic importance, host, 6
NiuLiXu2024: DNA sequencing, S1 Table
RamachRa1934: distribution, host, 9
Ramakr1919: distribution, host, 623
Ramakr1919a: distribution, host, taxonomy, 15
Ramakr1921a: catalog, distribution, host, 353
Ramakr1930: distribution, host, taxonomy, 18-19
Ramakr1940: distribution, host, 130
Rao1965: distribution, host, 30
Scott1952: taxonomy, 35
Shirak1913: distribution, host, 96
Takagi1970: distribution, host, taxonomy, 105, 140
Takaha1929: distribution, host, 74
Tang1977: description, distribution, host, illustration, taxonomy, 168-169
Tang1984b: distribution, host, 129
Tang1986: distribution, host, illustration, 296
Tang2001: taxonomy, 4
Tao1978: distribution, host, 106
Tao1999: distribution, host, 110
Varshn2002: distribution, host, 72
Wang1982c: description, distribution, taxonomy, 85, 88
Watson2001: list, 177
Watson2002: taxonomy, 117
Willia2017a: catalog, list of species, 231, 234
Yang1982: taxonomy, 232